Gays sue state to marry

News-Times, The (Danbury, CT), Fred Lucas THE NEWS-TIMES

Published
10:00 pm PDT, Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Denise Howard of Stratford is an adoptive parent of a 7-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son. She is also a lesbian. She worries about what will happen to them if something happens to her or her partner, J.E. Martin.

"I want security for my family if something happens to either of us," Howard said. "My partner has a pension plan, and if she died and left it to me, I'd half to pay half of it in taxes. If I was her spouse, I wouldn't pay anything."
Thanks in part to Howard and Martin, Connecticut is the next battleground in the nationwide debate over gay marriage. Seven Connecticut couples filed a lawsuit in New Haven Superior Court on Tuesday challenging state laws barring gay marriage.
The couples are backed by the group

- which has won same-sex union cases in two other New England states - and the

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union
. The suit argues banning gay marriage violates the state constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
If the lawsuit takes the same route as similar cases in other states, it will work its way to the

Related Stories

Connecticut Supreme Court
. The high courts in Massachusetts and Vermont sided with GLAD and provided legal recognition to same-sex couples.
In November, Massachusetts justices ruled the state was discriminating against gay couples by not recognizing gay marriage. Despite vehement protest from religious and conservative groups and Massachusetts Gov.

Mitt Romney
, hundreds of marriage ceremonies for gay couples have been performed since May. The Massachusetts gay marriage situation has become an issue in the presidential campaign.
In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled the state had to provide same-sex couples with equal rights and benefits, but left it up the legislature to determine the remedy. So Vermont recognized civil unions - which give gay couples the same right as heterosexual couples, but fall short of marriage.
The Connecticut case will also likely have political fallout. State lawmakers expect to debate measures in the next legislative session that would grant additional rights to same-sex couples. Meanwhile, one lobbying group wants to push for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
The couples who filed the Connecticut lawsuit are from Colchester, West Hartford, Wilton, Stratford, New Haven, Woodbridge and Middletown. Five of the seven couples are raising children.
All applied for marriage licenses in the southern Connecticut town of Madison and were denied. The suit is filed against the state

Dorothy C. Bean
, the Madison town registrar of vital statistics.
Mary Bonauto
, a lawyer representing Boston-based GLAD, was the lead attorney in the Massachusetts and Vermont cases. She expects the Connecticut case to go on for about three years.
"In the end, this is a case about real people with real families asking their government to treat them fairly," said Bonauto.
Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal
in May issued an ambiguous opinion on how Connecticut would respond to marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Massachusetts.
On Tuesday, he was more clear. Blumenthal, whose office will defend the state in the lawsuit, said the legislature has not authorized the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples or approved same-sex marriage ceremonies.
"Several statutes and court decisions indicate clearly that the
General Assembly
has authorized a marriage relationship only between a man and a woman," Blumenthal said. "These laws, like any duly enacted state statues, are entitled to a presumption of constitutionality."
There are actually two references in Connecticut law to gay marriage.
A law approved in 2000 that allows gay couples to adopt children also states the "current policy of the state of Connecticut is now limited to marriage between a man and a woman." That provision was the basis of a 2002
Connecticut Appellate Court
decision that said Connecticut has "a strong legislative policy against permitting same-sex marriage."
In 1991, a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation said nothing in the statute should be construed to recognize gay marriage. Also, Blumenthal pointed to marriage statues in Connecticut that refer to "husband" and "wife."
Martin Margulies
, a law professor at Quinnipiace University School of Law, said the lawsuit would likely reach the state Supreme Court, and could be successful.
"This court has certainly shown no bias against gays," Margulies said. "This Supreme Court has already held that gender classifications are suspect like racial classifications. If you can't prohibit interracial marriage, how can you prohibit this? I would find it very hard to get around that parallel."
Maureen Mollahan
, vice president of the
Triangle Community
, a gay and lesbian organization based in Norwalk, said the gay community welcomes the lawsuit.
"We are dealing with inequality here," said Mollahan, a Bridgeport resident. "It's an issue of people in this state and this country being treated as second-class citizens. This is critical to the quality of life and affects society as a whole."
However
Brian Brown
, executive director of the
Family Institute of Connecticut
, said gay marriage advocates are trying to do through the courts what they couldn't do legislatively.
"It has now moved from the realm of democracy to anti-democracy," Brown said. "It is now clear to everyone we need a state constitutional amendment to protect marriage. In Massachusetts, we saw judicial tyranny. The courts had no right to make same sex marriage law out of thin air."
Five states have passed state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. The latest was Missouri.
In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which gave states the authority not to recognize a gay marriage license from another state. So far, 38 states have passed their own laws.
Still, Brown said GLAD may have an edge in Connecticut because it has more money than the anti-gay marriage forces.
"We have always understood this is a David vs. Goliath battle," Brown said. "Our funds, compared to GLAD funds, are a pittance. But this is about right and wrong. What happens to marriage defines the future of our children and grandchildren. If two daddies are as good as a mommy and a daddy, why do we need a mommy and daddy?"
State Sen.
Andrew Roraback
, a Goshen Republican whose district includes Brookfield and New Milford, said the legislature would likely have discussed gay and lesbian rights issues in the coming session even without the lawsuit.
"My judgment is that it is appropriate for us to extend additional benefits to same-gender couples," Roraback said. "It's really not whether we will extend but a question of how much we will extend those rights."
Ann Stanback, executive director of the pro-gay marriage Love Makes a Family, said the lawsuit may pressure the legislature to take action moire quickly. "We believe the easiest route for the legislature would be to extend benefits and protect our marriages rather than waiting for a court case to go through the system."
But Rep. Lewis Wallace, D-Danbury, said the Connecticut legislature typically waits for the court to rule on such matters.
"The legislature likes to see what the court says the law says," he said. "Then we pass legislation along those lines that represents the will of the people."